George A. Sprecace M.D.,
J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New London,
P.C.www.asthma-drsprecace.comCHRISTOPHER
COLUMBUS AND THE “INDIANS”...FACTS AND DEDUCTIONS

Part I

The following notes were
made after viewing a TV special entitled “THE WEST”.It was excellent and very
informative.

“THE WEST MUST BE SEEN
TO BE BELIEVED, ANDBELIEVED TO BE SEEN”.

The presentation was a panorama
of history extending from the arrival of North America’s first settlers,
presumably the Indians based upon current research, and depicting the humanity
- and inhumanity - of them and of all the later arrivals through the Spanish,
the Mexicans, the Eastern colonists and the European immigrants.

Indeed, the inhumanity perpetrated
by each succeeding group on their predecessors rose at times to a level
of genocide no less heinous than the most recent examples in Hitler’s Germany
and in “modern”Africa.

As the plight and fate of
the American Indians unfolded before the irresistible force of Western
expansion, this viewer wondered whether there was any glory left to the
story of the West after the exploits of Lewis and Clark. The story
- as told mainly from the viewpoint of the Indian - is tragic, depressing
and shameful. It appears that events were played out in the absence
of active direction or even passive acquiescence from Washington.
The country’s leadership seemed itself to be an impotent spectator.

Toward the end of the twelve
hour series, and before reaching for the Prozak, I found myself wondering
whether it had to have been that way. Did the American Indians have
to be nearly annihilated for this country to achieve its Manifest Destiny?
Could they have seen the inevitable sooner and thereby adopted and integrated
into the most recent new dominant culture, as some of their successful
ancestors had done and as did all the successful immigrants to this melting
pot? The U.S. Government did attempt to promote that through an Indian
version of the Homestead Act. And Christian missionaries, although
autocratic, cruel and rigid, did try to provide Indian children with the
upbringing, educational and spiritual tools needed to enter the White Man’s
society. But probably the attempt was made too late, after a long
series of damnable broken promises had shattered all basis for trust on
the part of the Indians toward the White Man. What a shame.
What a waste of a noble People.

Is there a lesson here for
present-day America? If so, it is not to be found in the demonization
of Christopher Columbus, or in the clamor for “reparations” for slavery
- reparations paid in the Civil War. Rather, I suggest that those
groups within the larger African-American and Hispanic minorities who have
been resisting the honest desire and efforts of the “White Man” to absorb
and integrate them into mainstream society - as continues to take place
successfully with most immigrants and ethnic groups, may pause thoughtfully
before the history of the West. Marginalization and permanent second-class
status would be just as tragic, and totally avoidable.

Especially after the events
of September 11, let’s stop with the “hyphenated Americans”. We’re
all Americans, some of us lucky to be able to draw also upon another heritage
as well for identity and strength. The enemy is not within, but out
there. And we are no longer victims, by-standers, hostages...we are
all soldiers.Let’s do our duty, each
in our own personal way.

From antiquity, hunter/gatherers
probably did not practice slavery (another mouth to feed). Slavery
began when they became more pastoral and agricultural. There was
a marked increase in slavery when they went from subsistence to a market
economy, and when they began forming cities.

Sources of slaves were capture,
force, punishment, birth, sale of persons in debt, awards or
for chieftains

Slavery was a universal institution
in the world, lacking opposition until the mid-16th and early 17th century.
St. Thomas Aquinas considered it a “product of original sin”. The
Catholic Church and other Churches, including the Eastern Church and the
Reformation Churches, did not completely disapprove, but to sought to mitigate
its excesses.

Slavery already existed in the
Americas, especially in Central America, at the time of Columbus’ arrival.
(See Cortez’s description of what he found in the Mexico City of the Incas).

The “West Indies”, including
the Greater and Lesser Antilles - the islands of the Caribbean Sea and
discovered by Columbus, had been settled about 2 Million BC by primitive
Indians, hunter/gatherers from Central and South America. Initially
they were the Ciboney.

A second group, the Arawaks,
came from Venezuela and seized many islands during the 1st century AD,
pushing the Ciboney back to the hinterlands. Some of the Arawak tribes
in the Guianas practiced cannibalism. The Arawaks were the natives
“discovered” by Columbus.

Between 1000-1500 AD, the Carib
tribes from the Guianas and Venezuela seized some islands from the Arawaks.

The Arawaks were by that time
a peaceful people, involved in agriculture and pottery, with a relatively
elaborate social structure headed by hereditary chieftains.

The Carib had a less elaborate
social structure. Their lives centered about warfare, including cannibalism.
When they conquered the lesser Antilles, they killed the Arawak men, married
their women, and adopted the Arawak language.

Columbus found on his second
voyage that the Arawaks had killed the men whom he had left there on his
first voyage (they probably had it coming). He took about 500 natives
back as slaves, partly to “Christianize” them and probably mainly to justify
the expenses of his voyages in view of a relative paucity of gold found.

Columbus explored all the West
Indies, successfully colonizing only the parts controlled by the Ciboney
and the Arawaks (easier than the Caribs). The Spaniards who followed
impressed the Indians for work - until 1550, when the system of forced
labor was ended by the Spanish Crown, partly in response to the long-standing
opposition of Catholic missionaries working in the New World.
In fact, Columbus himself was sent back to Spain under arrest and in chains
during his third voyage because of his poor administration of the colonies
and because of reported brutalities performed in his efforts to maintain
order. (“A good Admiral, but a bad Governor”).

The Spaniards brought the first
Negro slaves there in the 16th century - not many, because the mines
became exhausted, and because they went into cattle ranching, which required
less labor. The main influx of Negro slaves occurred in the 18th
century by the action of the French. Meanwhile, Sir John Hawkins
had made slaving voyages in the 1560’s.

The Ciboney gradually died out.
The Arawaks declined in numbers and assimilated with the Europeans.
The Carib lasted longer; but they also declined and assimilated more with
the Negroes.

Sugar, rum and slaves led to
much conflict among the major powers (Dutch, British, French, Spanish).

Thus, Christopher
Columbus was a great seaman, a great navigator, a great Admiral, a fine
organizer and businessman, a poor administrator, a faulted man of
his age. He did what he did - and did it first - by virtue of extensive
readings, broad professional experience on the seas from the
age of 14, keen observation and deduction, (including regarding the flotsam
he noted on the waters around the Madeira Islands, where he lived for a
time with his family). His was a discovery about to be made by any
other good seaman with his ability and drive - it was inevitable.
And it led directly to what we call “the modern world”, with all
its good and evil.

On balance, he is and
should be one of the giants of history, much more for good than bad.
That the “Native Americans” (besides us, children of immigrants born
in America) should consider their “discovery” one of the low points of
their history is understandable. But that history began with Adam
and Eve and is still unfolding. It is not history that is good or
bad - history merely is. it is human nature that is good and bad;
and we are all a part of that. let’s celebrate it whenever we can,
each in our own ways